Comparing a covered stand-off pad for on/off grazing during winter with conventional winter block grazing 2017-2019 at DTT Stratford Demonstration ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Research Article 145
Comparing a covered stand-off pad for on/off grazing during winter
with conventional winter block grazing 2017-2019 at DTT Stratford
Demonstration Farm
G.D. Pitman*
PGGWrightson Consultancy Taranaki
*Corresponding author: gpitman@pggwrightson.co.nz
Abstract The effect of winter pugging on subsequent grass
A two-herd farmlet comparison was carried out on growth is visually apparent but has not been extensively
the DTT Stratford Demonstration Farm in Central measured in recent years. A trial at the Taranaki
Taranaki to examine the profitability, environmental Agricultural Research Station in 1984 (Thomson and
outcomes, animal welfare benefits and practicality Laurence 1992) under moderate rainfall of 25 mm for
of using a covered woodchip stand-off feed pad (Pad 5 days and with no visual difference in pugging, saw
treatment) for wintering cows compared with leaving no effect on regrowth over the subsequent four months
the animals on pasture (control). Use of the covered from a 4 hour on/off grazing system compared to zero
pad limited winter pugging damage to pasture to grazing harvesting (cut and carry). There was a 17%
minimal levels, while 6% of the control farmlet decline in pasture growth for 24-hour block grazing and
requiring rolling and some re-seeding. Pasture growth a 29% decline during 5 days strip grazing with no back
on the pugged areas was 24 to 30% lower over spring fence. Other studies have found up to 60% less regrowth
and early summer. Estimated annual pasture growth from high stocking density and long grazing durations
was 2.2% higher on the Pad farmlet compared to the (Beukes et al., 2013), including less productive pasture
control over the two years. The mean difference in species and more weed invasion. A review by Glassey
milk solids production over two years was 3%, (range (2019) determined that whole farm annual pasture
:146 Journal of New Zealand Grasslands 83: 145-152 (2021)
Materials and methods herds were managed to be fed at a similar level during
The two herd farmlet comparison commenced in June winter with the same supplementary feed types and
2017 and continued for two seasons, finishing in May amounts. For the second winter, late autumn-early
2019. The farm is located on the eastern boundary of winter management was designed to set each farmlet
Stratford in central Taranaki. It has a flat contour with up with similar pasture cover and feed as the previous
sandy loam volcanic ash soil, which is relatively free winter by early June.
draining. The farm is 290 metres above sea level and has Both herds were offered daily winter allowances of
an annual rainfall of 2040 mm where 140 rain days are pasture by break feeding at a stocking density of 21-
over 1mm. (NIWA station Stratford E94334). The rain 23 m²/cow/day, equating to a 130-day rotation. The
is moderately spread over the year, but generally less in control herd remained on their paddock break for 24
the mid-late summer. Rainfall over the May to August hours, except in extremely wet conditions, when they
period averaged 207 mm per, and 15 days per month were given extra area or stood off on the race or yards
had more than 1 mm. The highest recorded monthly overnight. This only occurred on 5 to 7 days each winter.
winter rainfall is 542 mm in July 1974. Sunshine hours The Pad group was allocated the same area of grass per
average 118 hours per month for the May to August day as the control and were moved to the covered pad
period. Pastures were standard ryegrass clover mix but for the night, generally spending 8 hours on pasture and
include other grasses and weeds. 16 hours on the pad. However, in wet conditions they
only had 3 or 4 hours on the pasture and 19-20 hours on
Farmlet 1 – Control group (25 ha., 82 cows) the pad. Occasionally, if wet in the morning, the cows
A high producing, mainly self-contained, all grass stayed on the pad until later in the day or had all day on
system (with replacement stock grazed off) at a stocking the pad and had an extra grass break the next day. Hay
rate at 3.3 Jersey cows/ha was used as the control group. and silage were fed out to the control herd dry cows in
This was determined as being the economic optimum the paddock and on the covered pad after the Pad group
for a self- contained system from previous trials on the had received their grass break, with equal amounts fed
Demonstration Farm and has been used as a long-term to each group each day. The Pad dry cows used the pad
control farmlet system in previous trials. every night after drying off and this continued to nearly
the end of calving. Cows at calving were not separated
Farmlet 2 – Pad (25 ha., 82 cows) from the rest of the herd. During lactation, the herds
A farmlet at the same stocking rate as the control and were on generally equal rotation periods, with surplus
with equal inputs, but with a covered woodchip stand- pasture identified and harvested as silage.
off pad used for holding the dry cows off pasture every Lactating cows in each group remained on pasture
night over the winter including calving, comprised the and were fed palm kernel expeller (PKE) which was fed
treatment (Pad) group. at equal rates from start of calving until late September,
when grass levels were deemed adequate or as needed
General management during deficit periods during the rest of the milking
The paddocks on the farm were randomized, so each season. PKE for lactating cows in the Pad group was
group was spread over the entire farm and had an equal fed out onto the covered pad and to the control herd
balance of old and newer pastures. The herds is a high in troughs on the exit race following milking. PKE
breeding worth (BW; 107 at 2017) Jersey herd with was fed at equal rates to each herd each day used. Any
a mid-season liveweight of 400 kg/cow. The herds other feed, such as hay and silage, were fed at equal
were selected be equal, based on age, BW, production levels and times for both groups. Any areas of pasture
worth (PW), weight, condition score and calving date, that were pugged were rolled where required, and when
and cows remained in the same herd for both years. possible, and severely pugged areas were sown with
Each year, in-calf heifers were randomised by BW new seed.
and liveweight, and brought into each herd at a 20% Fresh woodchips at 1.2 m2/cow were spread on the
replacement rate. Heifers were kept separate from the pad in mid-May and were stirred two to three times per
main herd until June 1st and then joined and grazed as week with a tyne cultivator. The pad was cleaned to a
one herd per farmlet through the winter. The planned depth of around 20-30 cm in the 2018 autumn, which
start of calving for both herds was 1st August, with was three years since the previous cleaning, and the
breeding and animal health management the same for discarded material spread on the Pad farmlet.
each herd. Replacement yearlings were grazed off site
on a May-to-May basis, and calves were grazed off site Measurements and monitoring
from mid-summer onwards. Pasture cover and yield measurements were assessed
The farmlets were set up to have equal starting using visual assessment, via a calibrated plate meter on
pasture cover and similar feed from June 1 2017, and a one to two weekly basis. Milk solids were recorded inPitman, Comparing a covered stand-off pad for on/off grazing during winter with conventional winter block grazing 2017-2019 at... 147
separate milk vats for each farmlet, with monthly herd ha advantage to the Pad farmlet. The measured grazing
testing for each individual cow (LIC). The cows were residuals throughout the winter were at similar levels.
weighed and condition scored every four to six weeks Hence, the extra pasture cover for the Pad herd was
and were dried off and managed in the autumn aiming assumed to be a result of better pasture growth and/or
to have both herds with equivalent average condition the control herd effectively having a 5 to 6 days quicker
and weight by June 1st. Animal health indicators and winter grazing rotation due to the cows being given
mating results were recorded for each herd. Pasture extra area on wet days.
pugging was recorded in each paddock through the Over the 2017-18 season, from calving to drying
winter using the PPPP (Pitman Pasture Pugging Points) off, the Pad farmlet pasture cover was equal or more
scale of 0 to 5, where 0 was no notable treading effect, 1 than the control through to mid-spring, allowing more
light, 2 light moderate, 3 moderate pugging and ideally surplus for silage. Pasture covers were nearly equal for
needs rolling, 4 pugging which needs rolling and re- the rest of the season. For the 2018/19 season, pasture
seeding and 5 severe pugging which needs re-grassing. covers from the end of calving were nearly equal all
year, with higher initial cover at calving on the Pad
Statistical methods farmlet.
Due to lack of replication and having just two years of
results, milk production and pasture production results Pasture growth
were not statistically analysed. Results are therefore There were small differences in pasture growth over
presented as a quantitative case study using raw means. the 2017-18 season, with the Pad herd slightly ahead at
Individual cow milk production collected by herd 406 kg extra DM/ha grown (15364 vs. 14958 kg DM/
testing was not analysed. Individual winter cow weight ha, +2.7%). During the 2017-18 season, pasture growth
and body condition were analysed, but the differences was 229 kg DM/ha (14437 vs. 14662 kg DM/ha, +1.6
were not statistically significant. %) resulting in +2.2% extra growth across two seasons.
In the first year, 28% of the farmlet area for the pad
Results and discussion herd was harvested (128 kg DM/cow) as surplus for
The 2017 winter started off dry, with June rainfall silage in the spring, while on the control farmlet 17%
being only 74 mm and 37% of the average. July to of the area was harvested ( 92 kg DM/cow). These
September was very wet, with 932 mm of rain (158% levels were relatively low compared to usual harvest
of the seasonal average) The 2017 spring was dry, with expectation. In the second season, both farmlets
below average pasture growth, but growth was good harvested 31% of the available pasture area, which was
from mid-summer onwards. Winter 2018 rainfall was at a more expected level with 252 and 255 kg DM/cow
below average rainfall for June, average for July and for the control and pad herds respectively.
August, below average for September to February, with
the latter being very dry (20% of average). Autumn Body weights and condition score
2019 rainfall was average or above. Over the two At the start of the trial period, all cows were similar in
seasons, planned extra feed included PKE to cover the weight and body condition score. Over the first winter
calving to late September period, however extra feed the control herd gained 15 kg in weight, but had no
was purchased in both seasons to cover the deficit due change in condition score, while the Pad herd gained
to dry weather during the 2017 late spring and 2019 22 kg in weight and 0.3 increase in body condition
summer. Brought in feed averaged 511 kg DM/cow and score. By November, there were minimal differences
1676 kg DM/ha per year. between the herds. Over the second winter, the control
herd gained 19 kg in weight and 0.23 in condition
Pasture cover score, while the Pad herd gained 36 kg in weight and
Both groups started with equal pasture cover levels in 0.37 in condition score, so had better body weight and
June 2017 and were fed the same amount of pasture slightly better condition at the start of calving, although
and supplemental feed throughout the winter, other the difference was not statistically significant. Over
than if the control group were given extra grass on wet the remaining season there were minimal differences
days. At the start of calving, the control farmlet pasture between the herds.
cover was 366 kg DM/ha less than June 1st cover and The body weight and condition score changes were
the pad farmlet 299 kg DM/ha less, giving a 67 kg DM/ consistent with expected responses (DairyNZ, 2017),
ha advantage to the Pad farmlet. For the second winter, likely due to a reduction in wastage from feeding
pasture covers and supplement levels were equal by supplements on the stand-off area. If the cows were fed
early June. By the start of calving 2018, the control 3 kg DM/cow for 80 days this equalled 240 kg DM in
farmlet cover was 378 kg DM/ha less than June 11 total. A 10% theoretical improved feed efficiency from
and the Pad farmlet 315 kg less, giving a 63 kg DM/ using the stand-off area equals 24 kg DM extra feed148 Journal of New Zealand Grasslands 83: 145-152 (2021)
utilised per cow. At 130 kg DM required per condition detrimental effect from pad use
score increase, an extra 24 kg DM would result in a Recorded calf deaths at parturition were higher for
0.2 increase in condition. This result, however, could the control herd compared to the Pad herd (seven vs.
have been due to a combination of better supplement three) during 2017, but similar, (six vs. seven), during
use and lower intake requirement from the benefit of 2018 calving. Cow deaths were similar between the
indoor shelter. herds over the two years (six vs. five).
In the first season, controlled internal drug release
Milk solids production (CIDR) use in non-cyclers was higher for the control
Table 1 shows the results relating to milk solids herd (11% vs. 7%), but levels were low in both herds.
production overall and for both seasons. During the second year, no CIDR treatment was used.
The 2017-18 vat milk production per cow from the The four-week submission rates were 4% higher for the
pad herd was higher than the control during September pad herd (89% vs. 93%) The ‘not in calf’ rate was 1%
and October, but near equal up to the start of May, when point lower for the pad herd (11.5% vs. 10.5%), while
the control herd was dried off. At this point, the pad the six week in-calf rates were similar, at 76%. The Pad
herd had a 10 kg MS/cow (or 3%) advantage over the herd had quicker initial calving in the second year as a
control group and an extra six says in milk (DIM), due result of the first season mating outcomes, acquiring 5
to having extra silage available resulting in the Pad days in milk extra per cow.
herd producing a further 6 kg MS/cow, resulting in
16 kg MS/cow (or 5%) more than the control herd, in Pasture pugging
total (336 kg vs. 320kg). During the second year, milk Pasture pugging levels were assessed and recorded for
production per cow was generally the same, except for each paddock throughout the winter. This was on the
two short periods, when the control herd was ahead. Pitman Pasture Pugging Points (PPPP) scale of 0 to 5,
The Pad herd had a faster calving rate, resulting in an where 0 showed no notable treading effect, 1 light, 2
extra 5.5 days in milk, and production per ha was higher light moderate, 3 moderate pugging and needed rolling,
during the early to mid-spring period. The Pad herd 4 pugging which needed rolling and re-seeding and 5
had more issues in the autumn, with lower condition severe pugging which needed full re-grassing. Table 2
cows needing earlier drying off, resulting in lower shows the results over the two winter periods.
late autumn per ha production. In the second season, In 2017, the control farmlet had 42% of its total area
the Pad herd produced 3 kg MS/cow (355 kg vs. 352 showing some pugging, but only 6% was severe. (score
kg) and 10 kg MS/ha ahead of the control, giving a 1% 4-5). For scores of 3 to 5, there were 22 pugging events
advantage. Over the two years this equalled a 2.75% per winter. On the Pad farmlet, 20% of the area had
overall advantage in milk production for the pad herd. some pugging, of which only 2% was severe. In 2018,
Small differences between the two herds meant that the control farmlet had pugging on 30% of the farm
statistical analysis using the individual cow herd test area, with 6% being severe which required rolling and
data was not carried out. re-seeding in parts. The Pad farmlet had just under 4%
of the area being pugged, of which 1% was severe. In
Animal health and mating 2017, minimal rolling was done on the severely pugged
Over the two periods, the control herd had more areas, as it was too wet until October and then became
lameness (11 vs. 7 cases) and mastitis treatment (13 too dry. In the second winter (2018), 10% of the farmlet
vs. 5 cases) than the pad herd with the higher control had to be rolled. The areas that scored 5 were mainly
herd level, mainly due to ongoing individual cases. small, and predominantly where the cows spent the
Other animal health treatments were similar between night in a corner of the paddock.
the herds. Somatic cell count was low and similar for On the Pad farmlet, most pugging was seen on access
both herds (111,000 vs. 118,000), which indicated no ways where the cows were moved to and from the
Table 1 Milksolids production as measured from vat collection for each year and overall mean
Control Pad Pad-Control
Year 2017-18 2018-19 Mean 2017-18 2018-19 Mean Mean % change
Cows 83 81 82 83 81 82
MS/cow (kg) 320 352 336 336 355 345.5 2.75%
MS/ha (kg) 1063 1140 1101.5 1115 1150 1132.5 2.75%
Days in milk/cow 247 252 249.5 251 255 253 1.4%Pitman, Comparing a covered stand-off pad for on/off grazing during winter with conventional winter block grazing 2017-2019 at... 149
covered pad to the paddock. In winter on this farmlet Covered winter pad management
(23 paddocks) the cows had 5 to 6 days grazing per The covered winter pad was a standard metal framed
paddock, on average, with access alley ways requiring Redpath design with a translucent covering on the roof
rolling but not re-seeding. The area needing re-seeding and a shade cloth wind break on the sides and open at
on the control farmlet was 1.6 ha (6% of the total area) the ends. It had two 60 m x 9 m bays with an internal
compared to 4%, which was typically done on the farm central lane and a concrete feed trough. The herd used
historically. Over the two winters there were 22 days on one side per night and the same side for most of the
average where pugging events scoring 4 or 5 occurred. winter, which equalled 6.5 m²/cow. Occasionally, both
Pasture growth was measured at different levels of sides were used if needed in very wet weather and
pugging on pasture breaks in certain paddocks. These during calving.
areas were assessed using a rising plate meter during The base land area of the pad was unlined and tile
the weekly farm walks throughout the spring and early drained to a collection tank. When built in 2012, there
summer. The results, although not statistically analysed, was a 20 cm base layer of wood bark and peelings
indicated no pasture growth difference between areas applied and 40 cm of wood chips applied on top, with
with pugging scores of 1 and 2. The difference between the intention of replacing the top 10 to 20 cm of wood
no pugging and score 4 was 24% to 30% less growth. chips each year. In practice, the pad was cleaned every
At 15,000 kg DM/ha annual growth, 30% less equalled 3 years, but had fresh wood chips (1.2 mᵌ /cow/year of
4,500 kg DM/ha. With 6% of the farm growing 30% chipped wood pellets) applied at the start of each winter
less, this equalled 2% less growth over the whole farm, during the trial (15-20 cm depth of fresh wood chips).
which was similar to the overall growth differences The pad was stirred with a tyne cultivator two or three
measured. However, pasture growth on the pugged times per week.
areas in the summer and autumn, and in subsequent In the first few years of use of the pad prior to this
years, was not assessed. trial, there was minimal water and effluent collected in
During August 2018, two paddocks side by side with the drainage tank, the exception being when there was
generally identical conditions and history were grazed a strong northerly wind with rain. The shade cloth sides
at the same time during moderately wet weather and stopped some of the rain, but it still misted through and
one very wet night. The PPPP for the control farmlet made the pad wet, causing a mess similar to a pugged
paddock breaks were scored at 2, 3, 0, 4 and 2 while paddock. Side eves were installed on the north side
the Pad farmlet paddocks had scores of 0 or 1. Pasture to stop the rain getting in, and the pad remained dry
growth was measured on different control paddock with almost no water collected in the drainage tank.
breaks until early January. Those that scored 3 and 4 In winter moderate sunshine allowed drying the base
grew 24% less than those with 0 and 2 scores. Over layer and it was assumed that most moisture evaporated
the whole year, the growth from Farm IQ records from rather than draining out. The cows were on the pad for
each paddock was 14.52 t DM/ha for the control and 16 hours per day after 8 hours on pasture and were fed
15.65 for the pad paddocks. This equalled 7% extra supplements in the feed troughs. However, on wet days,
growth in the pad paddock, which was consistent with they may have had 3 or 4 hours on pasture and up to 20
the one extra milking achieved off the paddock. hours on the pad. Occasionally, if wet in the morning,
they remained on the pad and received supplemental
Table 2 Pasture pugging levels (PPPP score 0-5) for two winter periods in dairy herds with and without feed pad access,
expressed by measured area (ha) and percentage of total farm area.
Control Pad
2017 2018 2017 2018
PPPPscore Area (ha) % farm area Area (ha) % farm area Area (ha) % farm area Areas (ha) % farm area
1 3.58 14 0.6 2.4 3.7 15 0 0
2 2.6 10 4.3 17 0.4 2 0.02 0
3 3.2 13 1.3 5 0.4 2 0.7 0.03
4 1.58 6 1.0 4 0.38 2 0.23 1
5 0.64 0.03 0.5 2 0.01 0 0 0
Total 10.6 42 7.4 30 4.9 20 0.95 3.8150 Journal of New Zealand Grasslands 83: 145-152 (2021)
feed, and then were either moved out to pasture grazing the start of the winter (3 hours). Cleaning out the pad
later or remained on the pad and had extra pasture the and spreading on paddocks was done entirely by a
following day. After consuming their feed, the cows contractor. For the control farmlet, extra time and tractor
were able to lay down on the pad, which was used until use was required for rolling and reseeding pastures (9
the end of calving. The cows remained in the main herd hours per winter). No assessment was made for labour
and calved in the group with no problems. When the differences at calving time. It was assumed that there
herd was out in the paddock, the calved cows remained would be minimal difference in machinery between the
behind on the pad with their calves until a more suitable two systems as both require a similar feed out wagon
time allowed for their organization. for silage and hay, whether feeding on the pad or on
The pad was cleaned near the end of the first season pasture. The only extra machinery required for the pad
of the trial removing the top 20 to 30 cm above the was the tyne cultivator, which was of relatively low
original bark/peelings layer, which was spread at a cost.
rate of 6 t/ha covering 60% of the farmlet. Random
samples of the bedding were analysed and comprised Nutrient losses and management
48% moisture, pH 8.4, C/N ration 17.5 and on a wet One of the assumed benefits for using stand-off
weight basis total N 0.96%, total C 17%, phosphorous pads is to reduce nutrient losses, especially nitrogen
0.45%, potassium 2.0 %, sulphur 0.33% and calcium leaching during the winter. (de Klein and Ledgard
0.83%. One quarter of the volume was dried wood chip 2001) This could be achieved with an uncovered pad
and the remainder cow manure and broken-down wood. but would need to be fully drained to effluent ponds or
The pasture application rate equalled 60 kg N/ha, 27 containment systems. A covered pad reduces effluent
kg P/ha, 120 kg K/ha 20 kg S/ha and 50 kg Ca/ha, and volume significantly. Stratford’s winter rainfall of 800
there was a 10% increase in pasture growth over the mm over four months, means that 8 m² of pad area
six weeks following application compared to similar would collect 6400 litres per cow of rain along with
paddocks based on the weekly farm walk data. The
pad was cleaned near the end of the first season of the Table 3 Overseer nutrient budget calculations (average
trial removing the top 20 to 30 cm above the original over two seasons)
bark/peelings layer, which was spread at a rate of 6 t/
Farmlet Control Pad
ha covering 60% of the farmlet. Random samples of the
bedding were analysed and comprised 48% moisture, N loss/ha 74 67
pH 8.4, C/N ration 17.5 and on a wet weight basis total P loss/ha 1.9 1.9
N 0.96%, total C 17%, phosphorous 0.45%, potassium
NCE % 27 27
2.0 %, sulphur 0.33% and calcium 0.83%. One quarter
GHG eCO2 t/ha 13.2 13.6
of the volume was dried wood chip and the remainder
cow manure and broken-down wood. The pasture Economics
application rate equalled 60 kg N/ha, 27 kg P/ha, 120 Partial budget ( per cow basis)
kg K/ha 20 kg S/ha and 50 kg Ca/ha, and there was
a 10% increase in pasture growth over the six weeks Income
following application compared to similar paddocks Extra milk production 10 kg ms/cow @ $7 $70
based on the weekly farm walk data.
Expenditure for winter pad
(annualized cost)
Labour and machinery use
Woodchips 1.3 m3/cow @ $33 43
The time input for feeding supplements and moving
Base wood chip replacement
stock on the control farmlet was similar to feeding
(10 yearly) 8
supplements and walking the cows to and from the
Pad cleaning 10
pad. The pad is in a central location on this farm. Extra
time was needed to bring the cows in to the pad in the Repairs & maintenance general 5
afternoons, although a timed gate release mechanism Roof cover replacement (10 yearly) 12
could be used to reduce this. One of the benefits of Pad stirring and woodchip spreading 8
the covered pad was at calving time, as it was near Extra silage making cost 1st year 3
the milking shed and easy to check cows at night, if Total extra cost $89
required, and in the morning and attend to any issues Saved cost re-grassing and rolling $20
as required. Net return $1
The pad required extra tractor and labour time Capital(Interest & depreciation) $1100/cow at 8% $88
for stirring the woodchips (8 hours per winter) plus
Net cost $/cow $87
machinery and labour in spreading the woodchips atPitman, Comparing a covered stand-off pad for on/off grazing during winter with conventional winter block grazing 2017-2019 at... 151
effluent. This would require a substantial increase in which is greatly appreciated. The input of Farm
the farm’s containment area, which could equal the Manager Paul Henwood is acknowledged.
cost of covering the pad at $600/cow. In addition, more
woodchips would be required if left uncovered. REFERENCES
The two-year trial data were analysed in the Beukes PC, Romera AJ, Clark DA, Dalley DE, Hedley
OverseerFM nutrient budget programme (v. 6.3.4; MJ, Horne DJ, Monaghan RM, Laurenson S 2013.
www.overseer.org.nz). This was based on farm dairy Evaluating the benefits of standing cows off pasture
effluent being spread evenly over the farmlets for to avoid soil pugging damage in two dairy farming
both feeding systems and winter pad cleanings spread regions of New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of
evenly over the farmlet each season. OverseerFM Agricultural Research, 56(3): 224-238. https://doi.or
calculated overall average N losses of 74 and 67 kg N/ g/10.1080/00288233.2013.822002https://doi.org/10.
ha for the control and Pad herds, respectively, which 1080/00288233.2013.822002
represented a 7 kg N/ha or 9% reduction (Table 3). An DairyNZ, 2017. Facts & Figures. https://doi.
additional reduction of 2 kg N/ha was calculated if the org/10.3390/agriculture7100081
pad cleanings were spread in the spring rather than the DairyNZ, 2021. Pastoral 21 report. https://www.
autumn. There was no difference in P losses calculated dairynz.co.nz/about-us/research/pastoral-21.
between the farmlets. de Klein CAM, Ledgard SF (2001). An analysis of
From these results, extra milk production income environmental and economic implications of nil and
covered the running costs of the covered winter pad, but restricted grazing systems designed to reduce nitrate
not the initial capital cost, however, there were some leaching from New Zealand dairy farms. I. Nitrogen
benefits from improved breeding results. Farmers using losses. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural
covered winter pads often justify the cost by using lower Research 44, 201-215. https://doi.org/10.1080/0028
price supplements that cannot be practically feed in 8233.2001.9513478
paddocks. Farmers feeding supplement to milkers can Glassey CB, 2019. Pads and Pasture growth gains.
also use the covered pad rather than building a separate Inside Dairy, May 2019 DairyNZ Ltd., New Zealand.
feed pad, thus utilising the capital expense twice. www.dairynz.co.nz/news/pads-and-pasture-growth-
gains
Conclusions Newman M, Journeaux P, 2015.The economic and
The extensive use of a covered woodchip feed pad nutrient loss impacts of constructing and running cow
in Central Taranaki for on/off grazing wintering housing facilities-a case study of five South Island
resulted in minimal winter pasture pugging, increased freestall barns. Massey University, Palmerston North,
pasture growth improved calving cow weights and New Zealand. https://www.massey.ac.nz/~flrc/
body condition. This resulted in a 3% increase in workshops/16/Manuscripts/Paper_Chrystal_1_2016.
milk production, an improvement in mating and a 9% pdf
reduction in calculated nitrogen leaching. There was McQueen IPM, 1970. The effects of winter management
little difference in animal health and assessed labour on farm production, An assessment of the wintering
input. The calculated financial benefits only covered the trial on No 3, Dairy Unit, Massey University. Dairy
operating cost of the covered pad, but not the capital farming Annual 20: 169-180. Massey University,
cost. Famers using these structures often value them for Palmerston North, New Zealand. https://agris.fao.org/
‘peace of mind’ wintering to avoid pasture pugging and agris-search/search.do?recordID=US201302394304
find them beneficial at calving time. They also use them Thomson NA, and Laurence MR, 1992. The effect of
to utilize lower cost supplementary feeds, which cannot duration of winter grazing on subsequent pasture
be fed in paddocks, and often see longer lactation growth. Dairy farming Annual, 44: 132-134. Massey
duration and higher milk production. University, Palmerston North, New Zealand. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1071/AR00063
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Woodford, 2018. Occasional report No 31. Massey
The DDT Stratford Demonstration Farm received time University, Palmerston North, New Zealand. http://
input from DairyNZ in the process of this trial and flrc.massey.ac.nz/publications.html.
especially from Chris Glassey in writing this summaryYou can also read
